6 ms·

Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/mai

Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/maintaining stuff, etc.

rbanffy 2y ago
I appreciate the honest answer to what was a bit of a provocation. Can we assume a fraction of people would still be doing these relevant things and that it'd be enough to maintain a functioning society? If not, wouldn't that point towards the directions we need technology to evolve? Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? One thing I would bet on is that, in that scenario, degrading working conditions (as we frequently see in agriculture, transportation, etc) would make it harder to find people willing to subject themselves to them.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. > Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? This is not possible because you cant simultaneously pay workers more (as a whole) and have them subsidize the non-working. I admit it may be possible to reallocate compensation among the workers so that some get more, while collectively they get less.
  - nehal3m 2y ago
    > Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. I don't disagree, but aren't you implicitly admitting here that the vast majority of people don't want to spend their lives doing work? We get a few laps around the sun, once, before we return to oblivion. It seems a tragedy to me to force almost everyone into spending that brief spark of life on the drudgery of increasing shareholder value. If you agree, would you then also say that it would be in humanity's interest to work toward a situation where people can lead happy, fulfilling lives? I'm not saying I have any answers, but I am saying that implicit in your own assumption is a problem that needs solving.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I agree with everything you said except the shareholder value part. people dont want to spend their lives doing work, but they do want to spend their lives consuming. If you eliminate the shareholders and shares, it still take the same amount of work to produce what we consume, so this wont help reduce work. In the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless. The only offramp from work is reducing consumption or 2) freezing consumption (assuming productivity increases)
      - kamarg 2y ago
        > it still take the same amount of work to produce what we consume Does it? Seems like if we don't have excess value going to shareholders, less work could be done to provide the current level of value for things people are consuming.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Value isnt the same thing as labor/work. This would change where the value goes, not the amount of work done. A restaurant needs X hours of labor to make Y hamburgers. This is true if all the money goes to workers, or just a fraction of it. You could pay a worker more, but that doesn't increase the supply of hamburgers. Inversely, any value tied up in the share price is not being spent on hamburgers. The best you can hope to do is shift some consumption from investors to workers, but consumption differences are as great as wealth/value differentials. e.g. Musk & Bezos might have 1 million times as much value to their name, but they don't consume 1 million times as many hamburgers. The vast majority of excess value held by investors is not directed towards consumption.
        nehal3m 2y ago
        > The vast majority of excess value held by investors is not directed towards consumption. So why does it need to be created in the first place then? That takes work that apparently does not need to happen for any other reason than economic, not because it is valuable in and of itself.
ilaksh 2y ago
Which of those jobs do the people in this thread have? Are they doing anything for the society to function? Does the income level reflect that?
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  That's a loaded question. Presumably you have a person that needs food. On order for that person to get food in our society, you need (lets focus on grown food for now) - People that plant things - People that harvest things (may be the same people, but maybe not) - People that a order things to be planted (seeds) - People that order/plan short term things to facilitate planting (fertilizer) - People that make those short term things (who other industry, lots of people) - People that order/plan long term things to facilitate planting (tractor) - People that maintain long term things to facilitate planting (repair men) - People that build systems to allow ordering of short term things - People that build systems to allow ordering/renting/use of long term things - People that build systems to allow finding people that maintain long term things - People that handle making sure those ^ people have the infrastrucure they need (government + industry) - People that handle making sure those ^ people get hired and paid We are WAY beyond "in order to get food for people, we need Doug the farmer". So yes, a LOT of the people participating in this thread are in the set of people that are responsible for making sure people, as a whole, have access to food. And food is only _one_ of the things needed for a society to function

Because until we have unlimited robots with AGI, stuff needs to get done for the society to function. Growing food, building stuff, delivering stuff, fixing/maintaining stuff, etc.

rbanffy 2y ago

I appreciate the honest answer to what was a bit of a provocation. Can we assume a fraction of people would still be doing these relevant things and that it'd be enough to maintain a functioning society? If not, wouldn't that point towards the directions we need technology to evolve? Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? One thing I would bet on is that, in that scenario, degrading working conditions (as we frequently see in agriculture, transportation, etc) would make it harder to find people willing to subject themselves to them.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. > Would paying more to the people who now don't need to work, but are willing to, suffice? This is not possible because you cant simultaneously pay workers more (as a whole) and have them subsidize the non-working. I admit it may be possible to reallocate compensation among the workers so that some get more, while collectively they get less.
- nehal3m 2y ago
  > Cards on the table: I think the vast majory of people would do less, and perhaps very little socially productive work without the current financial incentives. I don't disagree, but aren't you implicitly admitting here that the vast majority of people don't want to spend their lives doing work? We get a few laps around the sun, once, before we return to oblivion. It seems a tragedy to me to force almost everyone into spending that brief spark of life on the drudgery of increasing shareholder value. If you agree, would you then also say that it would be in humanity's interest to work toward a situation where people can lead happy, fulfilling lives? I'm not saying I have any answers, but I am saying that implicit in your own assumption is a problem that needs solving.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I agree with everything you said except the shareholder value part. people dont want to spend their lives doing work, but they do want to spend their lives consuming. If you eliminate the shareholders and shares, it still take the same amount of work to produce what we consume, so this wont help reduce work. In the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless. The only offramp from work is reducing consumption or 2) freezing consumption (assuming productivity increases)
    - kamarg 2y ago
      > it still take the same amount of work to produce what we consume Does it? Seems like if we don't have excess value going to shareholders, less work could be done to provide the current level of value for things people are consuming.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Value isnt the same thing as labor/work. This would change where the value goes, not the amount of work done. A restaurant needs X hours of labor to make Y hamburgers. This is true if all the money goes to workers, or just a fraction of it. You could pay a worker more, but that doesn't increase the supply of hamburgers. Inversely, any value tied up in the share price is not being spent on hamburgers. The best you can hope to do is shift some consumption from investors to workers, but consumption differences are as great as wealth/value differentials. e.g. Musk & Bezos might have 1 million times as much value to their name, but they don't consume 1 million times as many hamburgers. The vast majority of excess value held by investors is not directed towards consumption.
        nehal3m 2y ago
        > The vast majority of excess value held by investors is not directed towards consumption. So why does it need to be created in the first place then? That takes work that apparently does not need to happen for any other reason than economic, not because it is valuable in and of itself.

ilaksh 2y ago

Which of those jobs do the people in this thread have? Are they doing anything for the society to function? Does the income level reflect that?

RHSeeger 2y ago
That's a loaded question. Presumably you have a person that needs food. On order for that person to get food in our society, you need (lets focus on grown food for now) - People that plant things - People that harvest things (may be the same people, but maybe not) - People that a order things to be planted (seeds) - People that order/plan short term things to facilitate planting (fertilizer) - People that make those short term things (who other industry, lots of people) - People that order/plan long term things to facilitate planting (tractor) - People that maintain long term things to facilitate planting (repair men) - People that build systems to allow ordering of short term things - People that build systems to allow ordering/renting/use of long term things - People that build systems to allow finding people that maintain long term things - People that handle making sure those ^ people have the infrastrucure they need (government + industry) - People that handle making sure those ^ people get hired and paid We are WAY beyond "in order to get food for people, we need Doug the farmer". So yes, a LOT of the people participating in this thread are in the set of people that are responsible for making sure people, as a whole, have access to food. And food is only _one_ of the things needed for a society to function